Ophion differences

[kellrott]

We need to resolving differences from the different versions of the Ophion API.

Current version:
https://github.com/bmeg/ophion/blob/master/proto/ophion.proto

Proposed Next Version (named AQL to avoid namespace collision)
https://github.com/bmeg/arachne/blob/master/aql/aql.proto

[buchanae]

• ophion is missing all the service definitions

[prismofeverything]

What is the benefit of google.protobuf.ListValue over repeated?

Seems like the service definitions could be ported straight over. The main difference seems to be the addition of a graph parameter to queries to support multiple graphs, which is a pretty straightforward change.

[buchanae]

As I understand it, ListValue exists to support dynamically typed list items. Not sure if it applies here though.

[buchanae]

Seems like potentially the Ophion protobuf doesn't match the actual query schema used by the clients. @prismofeverything Is that true? If so, we'll need to resolve that before AQL can be synced up.

[prismofeverything]

It may have drifted a bit since I wrote the schema, I'll take a look. What differences are you seeing?

…

On Dec 22, 2017 10:58 AM, "Alex Buchanan" ***@***.***> wrote: Seems like potentially the Ophion protobuf doesn't match the actual query schema used by the clients. @prismofeverything <https://github.com/prismofeverything> Is that true? If so, we'll need to resolve that before AQL can be synced up. — You are receiving this because you were mentioned. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub <#21 (comment)>, or mute the thread <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AAAjd11vfH_FZGkx4JWZz94xTJ5_mW6Aks5tC_u9gaJpZM4RI2zn> .

[buchanae]

I was looking for Traversal.statement.hasLabel. Possibly I'm just reading it wrong though. My plan was to get familiar with the clients so I can get a better feel for the diff.

I guess another approach would be to encode a bunch of queries using only the Protobuf and see what fails.

Is there a definite source of truth I can look at?

[prismofeverything]

I would go with the clients as people are successfully using them to make queries. I can show you in the code too where the queries are processed, but that may be harder to determine.

…

On Dec 22, 2017 11:14 AM, "Alex Buchanan" ***@***.***> wrote: I was looking for Traversal.statement.hasLabel. Possibly I'm just reading it wrong though. My plan was to get familiar with the clients so I can get a better feel for the diff. I guess another approach would be to encode a bunch of queries using only the Protobuf and see what fails. Is there a definite source of truth I can look at? — You are receiving this because you were mentioned. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub <#21 (comment)>, or mute the thread <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AAAjd_-RP2_MuC5-Bnh6NgtV670s_ZQZks5tC_-BgaJpZM4RI2zn> .

[buchanae]

Here are the items I propose we resolve. I'm viewing AQL as a minimal, experimental proof-of-concept, rather than a full replacement for Ophion, so the items here are aimed at merging interesting features into Ophion. If that's not true, let's discuss that.

• Ophion adds the concept of multiple graphs.
• Ophion adds the service API, both query and edit.
• Ophion is overusing the Labels message type and it's confusing. label is a core concept and shouldn't be used generically, for example, to describe the list of IDs passed to V().
  • Create a new message types for IDs, Marks, etc.
• Document search
  • why was it added as a new concept over the gremlin spec
  • how is it intended to behave
  • or, consider removing it and making a full proposal for the problem it's intending to solve.
• Write proposal for resolving diff in Edge message type by removing fromLabel and toLabel from Ophion
• Write a proposal for the Bundle concept. The proof of concept exists, now it's time to explain it more thoroughly and make it a full proposal.
• Write a proposal for adding Javascript code execution to Ophion.
• I'm not sure if AQL is proposing to change the nomenclature of from/to to in/out. If so, write a proposal for it.

Keep in mind that a proposal should...

• identify and explain the problem
• propose the solution
• describe the impact (server, spec, clients, docs, versioning, etc)
• be discussed and refined before being merged